OPINION
Victims of fashion or Victims of Authoritarians?
This opinion piece is in response to a letter we published last week calling for the ban on camouflage clothing and other items. We publish the writer’s contribution, as we understand that a considerable amount of time went into its research and write up.
I address the issue from a Sociological perspective with emphasis on the Human Rights aspect of it and more so as a way to share with the mass what I have researched and dealt with on this issue
Firstly, we need to be aware that there is no law under the Trade Tax Act as was available at The National Library at the time I was drafting this document (Monday, September 11, 2006). Let me quote what the Trade Tax Act of 1992 states:
TRADES TAX ACT, 1992
AN ACT to revise and re-enact the law relating to the levy, assessment payment of trades tax in respect of goods and services, the control on the import and export of goods and the control price of goods; to repeal the trades Tax Act, 1985 and for connected purposes.
For the purpose of those not legally inclined, this act does not prohibit in any way the possession of item that has been given a permit of import by the government according to sections 8(2). 8 (3) and 8(4) of the Act and I quote:
8. (1) Notwithstanding any other written law, but subject to section 9, a person shall not : a. import; or b. export
8. (2) An application for a permit under this section shall be made in the form provided by the Minister and shall be accompanied by such information and document as the Minister may require.
8. (3) The Minister may, before making his decision in respect of an application, require an applicant to submit such further information and documents as the Minister may specify.
8. (4) The Minister may grant a permit subject to such condition as he thinks fit, or refuse an application, without assigning reasons for his decision and the decision shall be final.
For information purposes, Section 9 of the Act is about Exemption.
The questions we have are:
1. Which Part of the Trade Tax Act Specifically prohibits the importation of Camouflage attire?
2. If the ‘law’ has been in existence for over twenty years, which ‘law’ is that and when was it passed, has it ever been reviewed or revoked?
3. Who asked the law enforcement to get slack on this sois-disant’ ‘law’, shouldn’t the persons or person who allowed the law enforcement to slack on the issue be dealt with?
All this sois-disant new law that we are hearing about is not a law at all. If you bought the clothing in
Research has shown that there are Trades Tax regulations that include the prohibiting and restricting goods which used to form the basis of the SMB monopoly items. Sadly to note that such practice still exist for many goods even now that the so-called monopolies have been removed, that’s one reason why this Act needs to be reviewed but what is more important to note is that under this section there is no mention of the word ‘camouflage’ at all.
It should also be noted that the HS chapter that deals with textiles considers the types of materials (cotton, linen, wool and man-made fibers) and the various types of items of apparel and no reference is or can be made of the “pattern” of the textiles which is what camouflage is about! With no clear definition as to what ‘Camouflage’ is, how can there then be a ‘law’ against something that is abstract?
As one person rightly commented on this issue by saying; ‘There is another aspect/angle that must be considered in looking at the Trades Tax Act which we will briefly mention at this stage. The Act was passed in 1992 and therefore pre-dates the 1993 Constitution. It raises questions as to whether the contents of the law passed during the one-party era is still acceptable and is in conformity with the Constitution. I would off the cuff say that any law that seeks to restrict my constitutional rights to do business, etc has no place and should on this basis alone be challenged. Whereas a law may exist to require me to pay taxes, customs duties and such like, no law can prevent me from wearing what I want as long as I am not impersonating authority.
The origin of camouflage actually predates wars by about 20 million years, when certain cephalopods varied their pigmentation to match their background. Since then, it has been employed by various members of the animal kingdom. In the late 19th century, an American artist named Abbott Thayer observed that the coloring of many animals graduated from almost dark on their backs to white on their bellies. He concluded that this optic trick often renders the animal invisible by breaking up the surface of an object and making the three-dimensional appear flat.
This became the principle for military camouflage, as the advent of air warfare and photography rendered conspicuous uniforms obsolete. In
But not until World War II did camouflage conceal people as well as artillery. Avid collectors of World War II memorabilia can distinguish the camouflage uniforms of different armies but their patterns. In the 70s, hunters adopted camouflage to fool prey.
So that’s the story of the first 21 million years of camouflage, but how to explain its evolution into a fashion fad? One theory is that it can be seen as the logical extension of the trend towards faux snake, tiger, leopard, and zebra prints, all used in the wild as optical illusions to interfere with depth perception and adopted by the fashion world for their beauty.
‘Camouflage, a blotchy, stealthy pattern born to blend into the background, is grabbing attention all over the urban, style-setting landscape, reports Francine Parnes, a style writer for Newsday. One of the whimsies of the garment industry that Christian Dior can create a $5,000-plus single-shouldered gown in a print that’s more typically reserved for the clothing of combat.
Camouflage is being used in a very sexy way right now, states Jamie Ross, trend analyst for D3, the fashion forecasting division of the Doneger Group. In St. Tropez, which is a good barometer of what’s happening trend-wise, camouflage is huge, but it’s never done in a very military sense.
Anything military surplus is always waiting to be made fashionable, said Tommy Hilfiger, Camouflage is part of the urban scene, whether it is authentic in the true military mode, or just used as a fashion element. I do it [camouflage] in the authentic way because I like its rugged originality and authenticity and were adopted as hip-hop urban street-wear as early as the mid ‘90s. Some wore original surplus and some wore camouflage designed by companies such as FUBU. Camo belts and shirts studded with rhinestones can also be found at vintage/retail chains like Reminiscence
I guess that those who are crying that our young girls and women have no shame in the manner in which they dress these days will be happy to note that, the camouflage design is in danger of becoming so omnipresent that women who wear it may find it accidentally fulfilling its original purpose to conceal.
Are we joining the trend of
We are the victims of fashion, shouldn’t proper governance be addressed to other civil rights issues rather than the petty issues which even Mr. Toussaint (PR for Police Force) cannot give you the statistics for it? If this issue so bothers us, why don’t we have an Ethical Consumer Service with the right professionals in them and let this be their task. Ethical Consumer Service should exist to promote universal human rights, environmental sustainability and animal welfare through ethical purchasing. Is this too big to ask?
S.P.L